Most people believe that democracy and freedom go hand in hand, and on the surface of it, that seems to be the case. After all, countries which operate under democratic principals are by and large far freer societies than those that do not. If you’re lucky enough to live in a country which operates as a democracy, you’re quite entitled to say, for instance, that you hate certain politicians with no fear of reprisals. Democracy at it’s core is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people. A lofty ideal, and good on paper even when it falls short in practice due to the inherent imperfections of our politicians on all points on the political spectrum.
This said, true democracy has but one serious flaw built into it; the risk of the tyranny of the majority. Such a system would undoubtedly oppress minorities needlessly, wouldn’t it? Of course it would, there is no other way for it to be without various checks and balances being put into place which would prevent just that from occurring.
It is for this reason that the concept of HUMAN RIGHTS exists, to act as that check and balance to ensure that the rights of minorities to practice alternative lifestyles are afforded. On paper, again it all looks very very good, all people have the right to a private life, a family life, and sexual autonomy. So, what’s that to do with us?
Well, actually EVERYTHING. We are one minority that this system has so far failed miserably. Anti-incest laws are still on the books, we are still institutionally discriminated against despite being a threat to nobody. In truth these laws are still in effect due to public opinion; the public find us disgusting. Is that not the tyranny of the majority?
My argument here is that human rights concepts ought be applied universally when dealing with minorities that are harmless. We’re probably the most misunderstood and demonised sexual minority on Earth, and as such we should be protected from the tyranny of the majority, not subjected to it by our own governments on the basis that people are disgusted.
How can any system SERIOUSLY claim to believe in and practice human rights when those rights extend only to those that are approved of by the majority? That’s not real human rights, that’s just accepting those that are approved of already and to hell with anyone else! Human rights is the gateway to freedom for ALL consenting adults to engage in whatever relationships they please, regardless of whether or not it is popular. We cannot expect everyone to like us, obviously, but we can expect our governments to quit persecuting our people and throwing us in jail. We can expect to be protected from harassment and bullying, unfair dismissal at work on the basis of such relationships…etc. In short we can and SHOULD expect to be treated with the same respect and dignity as any other group of people.
We’re certainly a democratic society, but are we a FREE society? On the basis that human rights seem to apply to some and not to all, I would have to conclude that NO, we’re actually not as free as we think we are. When consenting adults can be jailed simply for having a sexual relationship which is unpopular, what kind of society are we living in? Not the pleasant, tolerant and progressive one that most people seem to think that they live in that’s for certain.
We will win the fight against bigotry and hate, we just need to get enough people to see that we are normal people leading normal lives, not weirdos or perverts. We do not need to justify our relationships because love justifies itself. We will get society to realize that just because they personally find something disgusting, does not make it necessarily wrong for everyone. We are both need and deserve equal rights, and we will settle for nothing less.
Consanguinamory 
People should be free to love who they want and have a relationship with who they want, the government and police have no right to tell you who can and can’t love.
LikeLike
Very intelligently written article. Sadly, when these laws were brought about, it wasn’t possible for people to stand against it without outing themselves. There wasn’t an internet back then to allow for anonymity, so no arguments were made against it.
LikeLike
Regarding human rights its hard to believe at times that we are really living in the year 2016 and not in the dark middle ages. I think the best way is to talk to people and tell your stories because often people are afraid of that which they don’t know.
As you wrote human rights should be the guideline in dealing with others regardless of sexual orientation, gender or race. That’s especially important today with the many problems we all face.
Concerning the majority I think the main issue is that many people are influenced in a bad way by certain media and politicians. It seems always easier to stir up emotions like hate, prejudice and fear in people than to encourage tolerance, love and compassion. That’s also the way many right wing populists come to power. They create an enemy and offer simple solutions to complex problems.
A few hours ago I was at ks because I was interested to know how many members you have now. Being there I read what you wrote about the Brexit. I think you made a mistake by voting that way because there are many good reason to stay in the EU. Its also very telling that most younger people wanted to remain.
I’m not British but I hope that you don’t mind that I write comments on your blog from time to time……… 😉
LikeLike
Human rights is definitely the way forward, but the EU is not the answer because it is an undemocratic organization. EVERY country should have the right to govern itself, and to me giving that up is too high a price for any supposed benefits of the EU. The EU is a bully, and it does little or nothing to help struggling member nations. Look at Greece for instance, how has the EU helped that country? It hasn’t. It’s offered bailout packages with such interest rates that the country can never repay the debt. That is enslavement, not help. It might be working well for Germany at the moment, but you cannot guarantee that it will always put the interests of your people first. Only an independent government could do that. The reason it hasn’t badly affected your country yet is because the German economy was stronger than Greece to begin with. The EU has threatened the UK with dire financial consequences if we leave…. that is BULLYING. If there is one thing history shows is that the British people do not respond well to bullies and threats. The media tried it’s best to scare us into voting remain and they failed. Brexit was the greatest gift we could give to our descendants, how could we have looked them in the eye if we had voted otherwise and our nation had been further enslaved to the EU.
LikeLike
Concerning Greek you are right. The EU, especially Germany, acted really poorly. But using this to justify leaving is too simplistic in my opinion.
I think the referendum should never have happened in the first place because it is such a complex and important subject and its sad that this became part of a national, populist campaign.
The people who voted for Brexit also exaggerated how many laws were dictated by the EU. Of course there were topics in which Britain had to make compromises but that’s part of being in a union of different countries. But saying the government wasn’t independent is simply not true even when these statements always find their supporters.
The EU was a lesson that came out of two world wars and a result of a world which is becoming more and more interconnected. A return to nationalism is clearly not the answer. Its no wonder that right wing parties across Europe applauded the voting.
But there are millions of people in your country who are really disappointed and angry about the results. Are these people fools? I’m sorry but there will be a big price for the exit, not just financially.
LikeLike
I can understand your point of view Stefan, although I will respectfully disagree with it. We do not all need to be part of a Europe wide government in order to ensure peace between our nations. The more de-centralized power is, the better it is for the people. I think even government on a national level is far too large for it’s boots and that the vast majority of power should be devolved down to the level of local councils… it’s more democratic that way.
I have absolutely no problem with us having peace and trade treaties with our neighbouring countries which would work for the benefit of everyone. But for us all to be governed by a centralized EU dictatorship is just plain wrong. The EU pretended in the aftermath of WW2 to be some kind of trade treaty, why then does it interfere in the lawmaking in countries? If it was about trade, then the ONLY law it should be involved with is helping set the level of taxes on imports and exports. World War 2 was a horrific thing, and the fact it is being used to justify removing the freedom and autonomy of European countries is despicable.
As for the far right, it’s rise is probably because so many people are seeing with their own eyes what the EU really is, the wolf in sheeps clothing. Now, I do not agree with much of what the far right has to say, but on mass immigration and national sovereignty I completely agree. Allowing more and more people into any country when there are not enough jobs to go around and there is already cultural clashes is a recipe for disaster, it is neither fair on the immigrants themselves, or on the indigenous population. Some immigration is a good thing, like doctors and other professionals, but what has happened here is that the unskilled job market has been flooded with so many workers that there is typically over 30 applicants for a single job. This has artificially depressed wages and lead to a lot of unemployment. So of course people are going to feel resentful and angry. The problem can be solved without any extremism by not allowing in any more economic migrants. Of course we have a humanitarian duty to take in genuine asylum seekers, but not vast numbers of people coming here to work and flooding to job market.
There are some people here who wanted to remain in the EU, that is true, but most of them are from Scotland. Most Scottish voters wanted to remain, and now they’re on about the possibility of Scotland leaving the UK and joining the EU. That Nikola Sturgeon made me LOL so hard, she wants Scottish independence in the EU….. there is no such thing as independence in the EU, it does not exist. The people who want to remain are mostly people who have been frightened by the remain propaganda and don’t want to upset to status quo. They aren’t stupid people, they’re frightened people, there is a big difference.
With independence, it means that the UK is responsible for itself, the good and the bad….. but that’s a good thing because if anything goes wrong we have only ourselves to blame, but also we would have the power to put it right and learn from any mistakes. In the EU if anything went badly wrong, we would be in such a straitjacket as to be impotent to do anything about it. I could never trust the EU after what they did to the Greeks. They’ve crushed that country.
As for the consequences of our pulling out of the EU… well, whatever they are we will just have to get on with it and persevere. Whatever the cost, it will be worth it for the right to govern ourselves.
LikeLike